Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target • Hacker News Board

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#191

Post by dTal » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 12:21 PM UTC

kilotaras wrote: post #189

john_moscow wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself, but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming will shift by N years int…

> However, if a politician came by and promised to raise gasoline prices by 50% in order to invest $X billion into WeWork so that they could solve the commute problem once and for all, Than you should like carbon fee and dividend scheme[1]. Tax emissions, divide equally between all citizens. The end result is unchanged populations spending power, but redistributed towards less carbon-intensive products. [1] https://e…

Carbon taxes should be uncontroversial. They're economically sound and use levers we already have and trust to control other aspects of society without much debate (sin taxes are widely used despite the odd objection). But people on the extreme eco-warrior end are suspicious because they look like paper-pushing without doing anything, and people on the extreme capitalist-growth end dislike them because they will in fact be disruptive. It takes a kind of well-intentioned pragmatism that I think is rare - one tends to get selfish pragamtism, or else well-intentioned idealism/fanaticism.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#192

Post by DennisP » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 12:31 PM UTC

makapuf wrote: post #184

DennisP wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that Lazard report, PV with four hours storage costs 10 to 13 cents/kWh. That's "in front of the meter" which is the wholesale cost. For retail cost, commercial/industrial pays 22 to 38 cents/kWh, and residential pays 45 to 66 cents/kWh. That's with only four hours storage. That's a convenient amount since it's the excess typically generated by solar installations during the day, but to actually get through a wi…

What night base consumption is absolutely vital ? I understand that some of the consumption is necessary to function and that some other is made possible by the fact that fossil energy is as expensive to generate at night and that it's cheaper to function 24/7. But sometimes it can be cheaper to shut down widget X factory at night not to double storage capacity. Maybe this effect will be important, I don't know.

If we have to build twice as many widget factories to make up for shutting them down at night, that's another cost to society that we should take into account. I've seen a lot of renewables advocates talk about "demand management" but not any estimate of this cost.

There's also heating, air conditioning, street lights, etc. Aluminum plants, which can't shut down more than 4-5 hours without major damage from the metal solidifying.

Before long, electric vehicles charging in people's garages at night; it'd be nice if we used them to supply the grid at night but that would require parking lots full of charging stations where everybody works, plus new infrastructure in people's houses, and some kind of incentive to get people to bother. All that costs money too.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#193

Post by akvadrako » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 12:43 PM UTC

john_moscow wrote: post #167

akvadrako wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it isn’t a complete answer to the question of how to return co2 levels to some level forever, but it has a good cost benefit ratio and could buy 50 years. The study showed that the available land at a low cost, much less than alarmist propaganda, is enough to reverse all the co2 emissions so far.

That sounds interesting. As a numbers person, I would appreciate a link to the study and some basic TDLR napkin math.

This article contains a link to the paper: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting...

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#194

Post by blondie9x » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

magnamerc wrote: post #107

blondie9x wrote: post #74

To all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a whole. Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure gover…

I don't want to discourage you, because everything counts, but I think the real problem with climate change isn't in the West, it's in the rest of the world. The West had the luxury of using cheap carbon in the early 20th century to industrialize and build out infrastructure. India and countries in Africa haven't had that luxury, therefore they are going to use as much carbon as is necessary to industrialize. It woul…

Where did I ever say this pledge was only for the West? This is for all individuals world wide.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#195

Post by blondie9x » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

nsporillo wrote: post #120

Etheryte wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those wondering about the relative impact of each bullet, [1] is a quick starting point down a rabbit-hole that goes very deep. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wynes_Nicholas_CO2_emissi...

Sure if one is counting just their personal impact, but in reality the developing nations will have no problem replacing you and the children you choose to not have with their own and it'll be a wash. Those resources don't disappear, the market will move them around. Is the argument to have less kids to save the planet not just population control propaganda?

Did I say this wasn’t for developing nations? This pledge is for everyone. All people from all places worldwide.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#196

Post by blondie9x » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

nsporillo wrote: post #117

blondie9x wrote: post #74

To all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a whole. Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure gover…

Call me cynical, but suppose 300 million westerners decided to stick to this pledge. What is stopping those newly freed up resources from being consumed by the remaining 7.4+ billion? Cratering energy prices makes it more affordable for developing nations to rapidly industrialize which is a one way street towards massive emissions until a sustainable solution is realized. Climate Policy is a classic example of how th…

I don’t get it? Where did I ever say westerners? This is for everyone. Not sure how you came to the conclusion I was focusing only on westerners.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#197

Post by nabla9 » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #45

nabla9 wrote: post #9

According to EIA global emissions are growing and predicted to grow through 2035. In 2035 global emissions are 40% higher than today. When the developed world can gradually reduce CO2 emissions, China, India and the rest of the developing world will continue to increase emissions.

naive question, if renewable become cheaper than fossil fuel options, why would they continue to increase emissions.

Renewable are not likely to be cheaper any time soon. Renewable are competing with fossils and competition reduces prices.

Just citing spot price in price/kwh is not telling the truth about total cost. You need to build energy storage, grids and extra capacity to fix the fluctuation of renewable availability.

Chunks of brown coal to used in heating and cooking will be cheaper than renewables for as long as I can see. Only infrastructure cost is a road for the truck to deliver coal.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#198

Post by john_moscow » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

kilotaras wrote: post #189

john_moscow wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself, but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming will shift by N years int…

> However, if a politician came by and promised to raise gasoline prices by 50% in order to invest $X billion into WeWork so that they could solve the commute problem once and for all, Than you should like carbon fee and dividend scheme[1]. Tax emissions, divide equally between all citizens. The end result is unchanged populations spending power, but redistributed towards less carbon-intensive products. [1] https://e…

That would mean taxing most productive or enjoyable activity (raising kids, going to business trips, fine dining) and rewarding depressive low-carbon-footprint sitting in front of the TV and waiting for death. I would rather spend that money subsidizing greener alternatives to common CO2 sources (e.g. EV subsidies), but that's already being done.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#199

Post by omginternets » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #46

omginternets wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France is a shining counter-example to your claim.

That isn't that clear-cut. France has lots of nuclear power, but most of the power plants are getting quite old and eventually have to be dismantled and replaced. We will see how affordable the nuclear electricity is, after all costs have been paid. I don't think they will be replacing nuclear power plants with new ones, at current costs. Still, currently electricity is way cheaper and much cleaner than in Germany. I…

That's a very strange way of saying "it brought them cheap, abundant, safe, eco-friendly electricity for nearly 60 years."

Yes, the infrastructure is aging. Yes, it needs to be replaced ... with more nuclear power.

It has a proven track-record. It works well with the existing grid architecture (which avoids massive costs). It's eco-friendly.

The thing that prevents nuclear plants from being built is not nuclear technology, but rather public opinion. Revisionist comments like yours, are doing humanity a disservice.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#200

Post by wavepruner » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

kilotaras wrote: post #189

john_moscow wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself, but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming will shift by N years int…

> However, if a politician came by and promised to raise gasoline prices by 50% in order to invest $X billion into WeWork so that they could solve the commute problem once and for all, Than you should like carbon fee and dividend scheme[1]. Tax emissions, divide equally between all citizens. The end result is unchanged populations spending power, but redistributed towards less carbon-intensive products. [1] https://e…

Where would the incentive to reduce emissions come from then? If you divide your tax of increase in emissions by 300+ million people, your effective tax increase will be low compared to the money you could make by increasing emissions.